computer-go: RE: beat 9d before 2010 - no, size does matter

[Patricia Hughes and David Elsdon <babel17@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ray Tayek wrote:

> > > >I think it's impossible for a computer to beat a pro 9d
> >...
> >Without a technology breakthrough (in computer), is difficult to say a
> >computer can beat a pro in 10 years. ...
>
> its actually real easy to say (the answer is no, even with *many* major
> technology breakthroughs).
>
> a little arithmetic will make it clear.
>
> 361!  (approximate number of games=1.4*10^768)
> 3^361 (approximate number of board states=1.7*10^172).
>
> the first of these is a *real* big number. there are probably more go games
> than there are atoms in the universe.
>
> you can solve the endgame and you might make a book for the fuseki, but the
> middle game is way too complicated.
>
> i doubt if a machine will beat any pro, let alone a 9-dan (have you ever
> played a 9-dan?) in 20 years, let alone 10.

BUT I am saying that we can build a Go playing program that does not come up
against these BIG numbers at all. I am saying that we can capture the knowledge
that a 9 Dan Professional has in his head. Then our program will be a 9 Dan
Professional. The program will beat the professional because the program will
not get tired, misread a sequence, forget to take something into account or
have an off day etc.

The BIG numbers that concern me are things like:

1. How much knowledge do I need to represent.
2. How long will it take to elicit and structure.
3. How powerful is the human brain compared to my PC.

AND I think the answers are - VERY approximately:

1. Not more than 100,000 rules
2. About 5 years of full time effort for a team of two + good access to a 9 Dan
Professional
3. About the same to within an order of magnitude.

Cheers

David Elsdon